Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hester v. Timothygreen2 sentences1973As this court said in Hester v. Timothy, supra at 385-86 , 275 A.2d at 641 -42: “* * * the grant of a special exception is preconditioned upon a showing that the exception sought is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public and to satisfy such a standard an *260 applicant is required to show by competent evidence that neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, welfare and morals.” The failure of the board to admit evidence of the effect of the proposed development on the Newport sewer system and the 1973As this court said in Hester v. Timothy, supra at 385-86 , 275 A.2d at 641 -42: “* * * the grant of a special exception is preconditioned upon a showing that the exception sought is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public and to satisfy such a standard an *260 applicant is required to show by competent evidence that neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, welfare and morals.” The failure of the board to admit evidence of the effect of the proposed development on the Newport sewer system and the | 2 | 3 |
Nani v. Zoning Board of Review of Town of Smithfieldgreen2 sentences1978Under article VIII, section 1 of that ordinance, the burden is on the applicant to prove to the zoning board that the "public convenience and welfare will be served and that the appropriate use of neighboring property will not be substantially or permanently injured if the exception is granted." In Nani v. Zoning Board of Review, supra , which involved permission to use a commercial zone for a gas station, we held that the "public convenience and welfare" standard that must be met as a precondition to the grant of a special exception is satisfied by a showing that the proposed use will not res 1978Under article VIII, section 1 of that ordinance, the burden is on the applicant to prove to the zoning board that the “public convenience and welfare will be served and that the appropriate use of neighboring property will not be substantially or permanently injured if the exception is granted.” In Nani v. Zoning Board of Review, supra, which involved permission to use a commercial zone for a gas station, we held that the “public convenience and welfare” standard that must be met as a precondition to the grant of a special exception is satisfied by a showing that the proposed use will not resu | 1 | 6 |
Northeastern Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review of New Shorehamgreen2 sentences2006See Bamber v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 591 A.2d 1220 , 1223 (R.I. 1991) (citing Northeastern Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 534 A.2d 603 (R.I. 1987)). 1999See Newton v. Zoning Board of the City of Warwick , 713.A.2d 239 (R.I. 1998); Northeastern Corporation v. Zoning Board of Review of the Town of New Shoreham , 534 A.2d 603 (R.I. 1987). | 1 | 2 |
Bamber v. Zoning Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence2006See Bamber v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 591 A.2d 1220 , 1223 (R.I. 1991) (citing Northeastern Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 534 A.2d 603 (R.I. 1987)). | 1 | 1 |
Warner v. BD. OF REVIEW OF NEWPORTgreen1 sentence1994That case involves a special exception which concerns a "conditionally permitted use." Implicit in the grant of a special exception is ". . . a right reasonably to expand and intensify that use so long as such exception or intensification [is] not contrary to the provisions of the zoning ordinance and was not inconsistent with the objectives of the police power." Id. at 210. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Salve Regina College v. Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences2010In Smithfield, the *Page 11 Appellant filed its application under the SZO, Section 4.3.G.14, "Health and Fitness Center," 1 and Sections 4.3.D.13 and 4.4.D.13, "Trade School." 2 "When applying for a grant of a special exception, an applicant must preliminarily show that the relief sought is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public." Salve Regina College v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Newport , 594 A.2d 878 , 881 (R.I. 1991). 2009"When applying for a grant of a special exception, an applicant must preliminarily show that the relief sought is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public." Salve Regina College v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Newport , 594 A.2d 878 , 881 (R.I. 1991). | 3 | 1994–2010 |
Toohey v. Kilday
green
2 sentences2010"As a condition precedent to the grant of a special exception, an applicant must establish that the relief sought is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public." Toohey v. Kilday , 415 A.2d 732 , 736 (1980). 2010Our Supreme Court has held that a zoning board "may not deny granting a special exception to a permitted use on the ground that the applicant has failed to prove that there is a community need for its establishment." Salve Regina College v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Newport , 594 A.2d 878 , 880 (R.I. 1991) (quoting Toohey , 415 A.2d at 735 ). | 2 | 1992–2010 |
Woodbury v. Zoning Board of Warwick
green
2 sentences2008Thus, in Woodbury v. Zoning Bd. of Review , 78 R.I. 319 , 319 , 82 A.2d 164 , 164 (1951), our Supreme Court upheld the conditions attached to the grant of a special exception to operate a funeral home requiring parking be to the rear of the property with dimmed lights. 2008Thus, in Woodbury v. Zoning Bd. of Review , 78 R.I. 319 , 319 , 82 A.2d 164 , 164 (1951), our Supreme Court upheld the conditions attached to the grant of a special exception to operate a funeral home requiring parking be to the rear of the property with dimmed lights. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Buckminster v. Zoning B. of R. of Pawt
neutral
2 sentences2008Likewise, in Buckminster v. Zoning Bd. of Review , 69 R.I. 396 , 396 , 33 A.2d 199 , 199 (1943), the Court upheld the condition that *Page 26 signs advertising the applicant's business be located only on the side of the property facing the highway and not the residential community. 2008Likewise, in Buckminster v. Zoning Bd. of Review , 69 R.I. 396 , 396 , 33 A.2d 199 , 199 (1943), the Court upheld the condition that *Page 26 signs advertising the applicant's business be located only on the side of the property facing the highway and not the residential community. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Bernstein v. Zoning Board of Review
neutral
1 sentence1996The grant of a special exception use is one which creates a "conditionally permitted use." Bernstein v. Zoning Board of Review of East Providence , 99 R.I. 494 , 497, 209 A.2d 378 , 392 (1978). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sun Oil Company v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Warwick
green
2 sentences1996Consequently, "the Viti rule only applies where the relief sought is for a permitted use, never where the applicant seeks both a [ Viti variance or] deviation and a special exception." Id. (citing Sun Oil Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Review , 105 R.I. 231 , 251 A.2d 167 (1960)). 1996Consequently, "the Viti rule only applies where the relief sought is for a permitted use, never where the applicant seeks both a [ Viti variance or] deviation and a special exception." Id. (citing Sun Oil Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Review , 105 R.I. 231 , 251 A.2d 167 (1960)). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Piccerelli v. Zoning Board of Review of Barrington
green
2 sentences1995Piccerelli v. Zoning Board of Review of Barrington, 107 R.I. 221 , 266 A.2d 249 , 254 (1970). 1995Piccerelli v. Zoning Board of Review of Barrington, 107 R.I. 221 , 266 A.2d 249 , 254 (1970). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Industrial Development Foundation v. Zoning Board of Review
neutral
2 sentences1993Industrial Development Foundation of Greater Woonsocket v. Zoning Board of Review of the Town of North Smithfield, 100 R.I. 123 , 132-33; 211 A.2d 648 , 653-54 (1965). 1993Industrial Development Foundation of Greater Woonsocket v. Zoning Board of Review of the Town of North Smithfield, 100 R.I. 123 , 132-33; 211 A.2d 648 , 653-54 (1965). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Bonitati Bros., Inc. v. Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences1980Bonitati Bros. v. Zoning Board of Review of Woonsocket, 104 R.I. 170, 171 , 242 A.2d 692 , *736 693 (1968); Nani v. Zoning Board of Review of Smithfield, 104 R.I. 150, 156 , 242 A.2d 403, 406 (1958). 1980Bonitati Bros. v. Zoning Board of Review of Woonsocket, 104 R.I. 170, 171 , 242 A.2d 692 , *736 693 (1968); Nani v. Zoning Board of Review of Smithfield, 104 R.I. 150, 156 , 242 A.2d 403, 406 (1958). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.